9 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Roy v. Neibauergreen2 sentences2025Rule 6(6) provides that a district court may direct entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and, "[i]n so doing, the district court must balance the competing factors present in the case to determine if it is in the interest of sound judicial administration and public policy to certify the judgment as final, and the court shall, in accordance with existing case law, articulate in its certification order the factors upon which it relied in granting certification . . . ." As set forth in Roy v. Neibauer, 188 Mont. 81, 87 2025Rule 6(6) provides that a district court may direct entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and, "[i]n so doing, the district court must balance the competing factors present in the case to determine if it is in the interest of sound judicial administration and public policy to certify the judgment as final, and the court shall, in accordance with existing case law, articulate in its certification order the factors upon which it relied in granting certification . . . ." As set forth in Roy v. Neibauer, 188 Mont. 81, 87 | 4 | 7 |
cluster 329547green1 sentence1980The guiding principles for a Rule 54(b) certification may be summarized as follows: “. . . (1) the burden is on the party seeking final certification to convince the district court that the case is the ‘infrequent harsh case’ meriting a favorable exercise of discretion; (2) the district court must balance the competing factors present in the case to determine if it is in the interest of sound judicial administration and public policy to certify the judgment as final; (3) the district court must marshall and articulate the factors upon which it relied in granting certification so that prompt an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kohler v. Croonenberghs
green
2 sentences2020Rule 6(6) provides that a district court may direct entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and, "Mil so doing, the district court must balance the competing factors present in the case to determine if it is in the interest ofsound judicial administration and public policy to certify the judgment as final, and the court shall, in accordance with existing case law, articulate in its certification order the factors upon which it relied in granting certification . . . ." To meet these criteria,the District Court must do mo 2020Rule 6(6) provides that a district court may direct entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and, "Mil so doing, the district court must balance the competing factors present in the case to determine if it is in the interest ofsound judicial administration and public policy to certify the judgment as final, and the court shall, in accordance with existing case law, articulate in its certification order the factors upon which it relied in granting certification . . . ." To meet these criteria,the District Court must do mo | 3 | 2020–2024 |
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
green
2 sentences2020Kohler, ¶ 16 (quoting Roy, 188 Mont. at 87 , 610 P.2d at 1189 ). “[A] trial court must clearly articulate its reasoning behind any factors set forth, so this Court has some basis for distinguishing between well-grounded orders and ‘mere boiler-plate approval unsupported by the facts or an analysis of the law.’” In re Marriage of Armstrong, ¶ 12 (quoting Kohler, ¶ 14). ¶12 The District Court certified the order as final because (1) the ninety-two plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed under the order may be realigned with the remaining plaintiffs should the Supreme Court reverse the order; (2) 2020Kohler, ¶ 16 (quoting Roy, 188 Mont. at 87 , 610 P.2d at 1189 ). “[A] trial court must clearly articulate its reasoning behind any factors set forth, so this Court has some basis for distinguishing between well-grounded orders and ‘mere boiler-plate approval unsupported by the facts or an analysis of the law.’” In re Marriage of Armstrong, ¶ 12 (quoting Kohler, ¶ 14). ¶12 The District Court certified the order as final because (1) the ninety-two plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed under the order may be realigned with the remaining plaintiffs should the Supreme Court reverse the order; (2) | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.